Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs (CPSJ)
SECOND EDITION, by: Arthur E. Sowers,
Part 1: THE JOB CRUNCH AND THE GRANT CRUNCH

While the emphasis of this part is on the academic environment,
much is applicable to industrial environments and even non-science
environments.  While the emphasis in this posting is on
problems which are detrimental to the individual and/or his/her
desired career interests, it is also true that individuals, both at
the student, faculty, and staff level, sometimes cause problems for
other individuals, institutions, and the scientific community in
general. A minority of people in all environments are the cause of
misdeeds of varying severity. My essays will not cover these
issues, but relevant material can be found in the literature.

THE JOB CRUNCH:
In most areas of science (and at least some areas in engineering)
there are few jobs and many applicants. National PhD production in
the biomedical sciences is stated (Science, vol. 265, p. 33,
[1994]) to be around 3500 per year and rising.  At the time of
graduation, about 68 % of these had jobs in 1982, but has decreased
to 50% by 1992 (Science, vol. 265, p. 1906 [1994]).  While
postdoctoral positions are not as difficult to find, the applicant
to job ratios for tenure track jobs now run around 100-300 to one,
or more, and have been at that level for two decades now.  The
lower ratios are for more specialized topics and positions at
isolated institutions.  The references for 700-1,000 applicants per
job are: Wall Street Journal, Feb 15, 1994 (front page); Chronicle
of Higher Education, March 23, 1994 (Section 2, pull out, page B1).
An additional relevant article is in The Chronicle of Higher
Education, April 27, 1994. A relatively new phenomenon in the last
few years for many advertised teaching positions is a request for
documentation of teaching experience and submission of
transcripts or copies of transcripts.  On top of the bad job market
is the fact that downsizings are going on all over.  Stanford and
MIT have budget problems (Chronicle of Higher Education May 4,
1994). The pharmaceutical industry has downsized by a total of
46,380 jobs (15% of all pharmaceutical jobs) since 1990 (The
Scientist, Dec 12, 1994, p. 11), although how many of those were at
the PhD level was not stated.  The implication here is that a great
many people in the PhD-postdoc pipeline will never get a crack at
that tenure-track job and the only alternative is hang on in the
hopes of a random chance of "looking good" to a hiring entity. 
Another reason for hanging on is the principle of the path of least
resistance: "I am here, therefore I will stay here until something
forces me to move to something else."  These scenarios will end
with postdocs in their 40s and 50s finally not being able to land
another postdoc. Individuals should consider getting out now if
not soon.  

THE GRANT CRUNCH:
In most academic science/research jobs, a faculty member will be
expected to get substantial grant money to keep his/her job and/or
laboratory.  A fact not widely known is that in many departments
between at least 25% (the summer salary) and 100% of the paycheck
of a Principal Investigator is generated from a grant (the higher
end is commonly true at most if not all medical schools and
clinical departments).  So what happens when you loose your grant? 
You loose that part of your paycheck!  No, the chairman will not
rush in with money to fill the gap. Yes, you tighten the belt. In
some institutions, you may get one year to get your grant restored
or you then loose your job, in some cases even if you have tenure. 
I have heard now of a number of cases where, even with tenure,
faculty were terminated when it became known that their grants were
not going to be renewed.  What happens if you leave the
institution?  They have 200-300 new applicants to choose from. Its
a buyers market. In the early 1980s about half of all grant
proposals were funded but, since then this funding success rate has
slowly diminished to about 15-20% at present (Science, vol. 263, p.
1213 [1994] and Science, vol. 266, p. 1789 [1994]). Superstars with
outstanding reputations probably have less trouble getting funded,
leaving a much smaller than 15-20% average success left for the
rest. To complete the circle, renewal of grants is not automatic. 
In general, a significant fraction of all grants are not renewed,
thus forcing the Principal Investigator to always be submitting
grants with bracketed proposed funding periods in a strategy aimed
at keeping funding unbroken. I read somewhere that the average rate
of non-renewal of NIH grants is about 30% on the arrival of the
first competitive renewal date and 60% on the second.